Norme that's not ejecta its a pain't or blending tool adjustment via gimp or photoshop or the like. The odd smoothness Glenn refers to that is unlike the graininess of the original pic is the blending product of a photo editing tool. If it were real the same graininess, would be evident in a real plume.That's the nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned.

Yea, I gotta say there is not much in the way of impact ejecta evident. It's curious the projected impact point is that small bright rimmed crater (see the original OP sequence.) Before and after show nothing, IMO.

Glenn is correct, the resolution is less than the other two. And the 'plume' is beginning to look suspiciously like an artifact - intentional or otherwise - with "odd" smoothness compared to the rest of the image. Good point, Pete.

I really wanted to give benefit of the doubt, but I'm skeptical and now more convinced there's nothing to see here.

In my first post in this thread I wrote that my first impression was of a ghost reflection. I seem to recall at least one other respondent here mooting the same notion...

Of course this is merely a best guess based on the evidence. But it's rather more likely than a cloud of debris (or even gas). This goes to show the danger of rushing to a conclusion, and especially of ascribing properties to a phenomenon for which the available data are of poor quality and not supported by another independent observation. Not scientific.

In my first post in this thread I wrote that my first impression was of a ghost reflection. I seem to recall at least one other respondent here mooting the same notion...

Of course this is merely a best guess based on the evidence. But it's rather more likely than a cloud of debris (or even gas). This goes to show the danger of rushing to a conclusion, and especially of ascribing properties to a phenomenon for which the available data are of poor quality and not supported by another independent observation. Not scientific.

Actually, the only hasty conclusion anyone drew was that it was a hoax. I didn't see any rush to believe it was an actual TLP.

What sort of optical reflection might look like that in a system where there was no eyepiece involved, only the objective and the camera?

Rick,As the OP wrote, and backed up with a pic of his gear, eyepiece projection was employed. Not that a reflection is necessarily the case, but the kind of variability and irregularity in the image sequence would seem to be more in keeping with an optical effect than a physical event. The other very real possibility is seeing variation.

My conclusion thus far is that of an impact creating a dist cloud. Though I am by no means an expert astronomer. These kinds of impacts apparently happen fairly often, or so I've read. However, I remain open to deabte

What is the scale on that image? Not intending to be flippant, but if I did not know that was a lunar scene I would seriously think it to be a 2 foot section of ancient asphalt on the edge of a beat up road.

I was asked to remove the NASA images. I forgotten about the rules. Posts deleted.

My mistake on the identity of the crater. The crater is actually a smaller one south east of Maginus (A) within the larger Maginus Crater. To give some kind of scale. The large forked shaped crevasse is about 200 meters in length.